Quoting Moose135 (Reply 1):Oh My God! What were they thinking, flying a Presidential candidate around in such an unsafe aircraft? Everyone knows they just drop out of the sky without warning!

Please provide one ounce of truth in this statement.

I cannot recall any instance where the airplane was cruising along and just fell out of the sky. The two early fatal incidents involved combat assault landings. The airplane now has software that will auto-land the airplane if the pilots lose sight of the ground (overcomes the ring-state issues that caused the accidents).

Check-out the Military Channel show "Flight of the V-22 Osprey" for the debrief on the first deployment and the upgrades to the airplane that have been performed.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 6):What a crappy, BS, one sided dog and pony show that was.

They filmed what the Marines would let them film. However, the facts are that the deployment was completed without incident and with an availability equal to or greater than the airplane it replaced. Yes they didn't load it with guns and fly it as a gunship 23 hours a day, but that wasn't the deployment profile.

This will be the long range vertrep aircraft for the next two decades so get used to it.

Was not disputing the facts. Just commenting on the show. I had heard that availability was not that great. Probably due to the fact that the logistics and parts supply were not in place like they are for all the other airframes. And, no one expects them to arm an assualt support aircraft like a gunship. Cobras are gunships; Hueys like to think they are; Phrogs, Shitters, and Ospreys are assualt support, plain and simple. Phrogs and Shitters can somewhat provide defensive fire all around though.

VertRep is the term usually used for underway replenishment of ships via helicopters, typically using slings. The V-22 will most likely not be used in this role very much, as there are plenty of other assets in the Navy and Marine Corps that are more capable. What you probably meant was long range resupply missions. I can see it being used in this role extensively, and it is one of the few things that I like about the aircraft, and that I think it will do effectively.

It does bring some stuff to the table for Marine Aviation. It does not replace the Phrog completely, and those who deny that have blinders on. The problem is what will the Marine Corps use to fill the gap between the Huey and the Osprey once all the Phrogs are gone.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 9): long range resupply missions. I can see it being used in this role extensively, and it is one of the few things that I like about the aircraft, and that I think it will do effectively.

This is where I think the Army is really missing out, the V-22 could be very useful especially in light of transformation from Division centric to expeditionary Modular Brigades. The V-22 could be used for long range replenishment, reinforcements or for raids in Afghanistan.

At the least the medium and light Combat aviation brigades should each be equipped with a battalion of V-22s, CAB's such as:

This is the THIRD time you have made this ridiculous argument, and amazingly you've added a new gem to your hair-brained proposal: 12th CAB! So, this will be the THIRD time I will challenge you to support your proposal with something more substantial then the minor reasons you've repeatedly put out.

By adding such an aircraft to a LIGHT division completely runs counter to their entire purpose in life!

By adding the V-22, you are wastefully overlapping the roll of the CH-47.

Can the V-22 sling-load a M198? Oh by the way, the M198 is a chief component for both the 101st and 82nd, in helping to achieve their war time objectives. Right now only the CH-47s fulfill those division objectives for rapid weapon deployment.

When you look at Army helicopters, range has never been a major discriminator for airframe selection. The reason being, you are not regularly tasking your aviation units with having to fly far beyond the FLOT. Something like 80% of all missions occur within 200nm of home base.

How do you transport a V-22 to anywhere in the world, within 18hrs? Afterall, that is the 82nd Airborne Division's primary mission, isn't?

How do you justify the Army spending more money on a single V-22, than what it would cost to buy a company worth of UH-60s or a flight of CH-47s? Upwards and beyond $50million per aircraft? And you want each CAB to have a minimum of one entire BATTALION!? ....So in other words, you want the Army to allocate $6BILLION for the V-22?!

(And by the way, I was conservative with those figures! A battalion has 3 flying companies, 1 maintenance company, and 1 support company. Depending on the airframe, the number of aircraft in each company will vary. But on average, most companies have 10-14 aircraft. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured only 8 V-22s per company, for a total of 24 per BTN. So 24 a/c per BTN, times your proposed 6 BTNs, times a very conservative $50million per a/c = billions of dollars needed).

And additionally, where do you even plan of finding those billions of dollars? What branch of the Army must suffer, so that ST7757 can sleep well at night?

Your proposal is nothing more than "oh I think that would be cool!" And has little to no thought beyond that. DOA: Dead On Arrival.

Opposed the USMC float concept...CV-22 CONOPS is to "self deploy" the acft.

However, the 18 hour promise made by ANY military unit is a bit bold without knowing WHERE the deployment will be to...airlift availability, weather delays, political constraints etc.

In the end it's all about cost...will the Army ever establish a requirement to fly faster than traditional helo's do today? If so, there's an argument to be made for Tilt-Rotors in the Army, but doesn't look like this is going to happen any time soon.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 16):Maybe...dual hook rating of the V-22 is 15K, isn't that about what the M-198 weighs?

The max sling for a V-22 is rated at 10,000.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 16):
However, the 18 hour promise made by ANY military unit is a bit bold without knowing WHERE the deployment will be to...airlift availability, weather delays, political constraints etc.

As much as I hate my double A battery, plane jumping jumping friends in the 82nd... I give credit, where credit is do.

They have had over 50years to perfect the art of rapid deployment.... so when their mission is be anywhere in 18hrs.... unless they're going into a hurricane, they'll be there.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17):As much as I hate my double A battery, plane jumping jumping friends in the 82nd... I give credit, where credit is do.

They have had over 50years to perfect the art of rapid deployment.... so when their mission is be anywhere in 18hrs.... unless they're going into a hurricane, they'll be there

Jumping into a hurricane, that makes for a funny mental picture!

I don't hate the Airborne, just saying they are not going anywhere in 18 hours without airlift, and airlift is dependant upon many factors.

In fact, the 3 hour tear down / build up requirement for CSAR-X was basically 'backed out' of one 24 hour period...the fastest our airlifters can get half way across the globe is 18 hours which leaves 6 hours to prepare an acft for airlift, or 3 hours on each end of the flight.

I think the Airborne claims of 18 hrs to deploy is based upon this physical limit of the time it takes airlift to get half way across the globe and has less to do with the unit's ability to do anything in the way of preparations.

That said...V-22's cruising at 250 MPH aren't going half way around the world in 18 hours, so not a good platform to move large numbers of troops long distances, but great to have a VTOL machine that can cover some distances and small numbers of troops at twice the speed of conventional helos!

Back to my point the CABs are "supposed" to be MFCAB, Multi-functional Combat aviation brigades. I would call the V-22 Multifunctional, and something I would think Brigade commanders would want at their disposal. It might not carry as much as a Chinook, but it can fly farther, higher, faster.

If I had wounded on the battlefield, and my choices for their transport back to medical care were a Chinook, Black hawk or a V-22 I would want the V-22. Their price tags would not be that much of a concern to me, the Buffalo's cost a heck of a lot more than the HMMVS but have been proven life savers despite the fact that the accelerated build and deployment schedules which have Charleston factories running 24/7 have obviously taken funding away from other areas.

Once again.... you have completely sidestepped all of the questions and issues I raised.

Whether or not the Army should buy V-22s in not dependent on "something ST7757 thinks the Army needs." You need to answer those questions I raised, and you need to make an argument based on facts - not your personal opinions.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 20):heir price tags would not be that much of a concern to me

...Hence my point. Just because YOU are not concerned with the price tag, does not mean the issue of exorbitant costs, simply goes away!

You called for 6 CABs to each have a BTN of V-22s, yet you cannot even explain where that money would come from.

Well we can start by getting it appropriated in Congress, do we need to go into how a bill becomes law. There are also probably some huge cost savings that can be realized just by tweaking some of the FCS.

The V-22 has an OBOGS (On Board Oxygen Generating System) that can support the crew and there are a number of roll on packages available for Pax...pity they couldn't figure out how to pressurize the cabin...just too many holes to plug in that "Twist-Cap" I guess.

Remember hooking up the load under a Chinook, and knowing what it's like to stand in the middle of a cat 5 hurricane? lol... I can only imagine what it must feel like under the Osprey.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 16):
All references I find call out a 15K dual hook capacity for the V-22...including Boeing's site:

Interesting. I had read 15K once, but was under the impression that it had been dropped down to 10k for hook longevity? The same goes for the UH-60 and the Ch-47.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 16):I don't hate the Airborne, just saying they are not going anywhere in 18 hours without airlift, and airlift is dependant upon many factors.

lol... no but I do! Having been born and raised with the mighty 101, I have a natural disdain for the 82nd! Although, when I graduated basic, before going to AIT, I went to airborne school. It wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Personally I think the entire concept of airborne operations is outdated and nothing more than a legacy division. When is the last time they did an actual combat jump? (And I am not talking about jumping onto a bunch of sheep in northern Iraq!) All of those with a mustard stain are aging old men!

But yeah... even though I don't particularly care for the 82nd, their constant readiness posture, and their constant practice at rapid deployment, begrudgingly earns my respect. They may not be able to go on the offensive within 18hrs, but they definitely can act as a firewall until the larger units move in.

-UH60

25 UH60FtRucker
: Well I would have to disagree with that. My argument was against the Army buying it. Perhaps we in the 160th can use it.... but not the regular Army.

26 Curt22
: Agreed...if the V-22 proves itself to be a capable acft (and looks like the recent USMC and soon to be AFSOC deployment is making this case)...I thin

27 STT757
: Looks like the Army feels there's a place for the Osprey within their branch, at least within the ranks of the Special Ops and Airborne units.

28 STT757
: Seems the Army originally wanted about 231 Ospreys, but the costs drove them out of the program. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1988/880104014

29 CTR
: Not costs but DOD budget cuts. The Army had to make a choice between the V-22 Osprey or the LHX which became the Comanche. If the Army funding had st

30 Wvsuperhornet
: That was quick he isnt even President yet and he is already wasting taxpayers money.